Leaderboard

I've figured out it may be a good idea to share links to the static templates I've created for a couple of airfields/airports/airbases for the Kola map. Completed: Murmansk International Airport: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3337384/ Severomorsk-3: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3337367/ Kemi Tornio: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3337326/ Vuojarvi: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3337113/ Olenegorsk: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3337404/ Severomorsk-1: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3337423/ Monchegorsk: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3337494/ Rovaniemi: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3337910/ Bodo: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3338070/ Banak: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3338205/ Vidsel: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3340056/ Kirkenes: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3340163/ Kallax: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3340186/ Ivalo: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3340931/ Kuusamo: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3340932/ Alakourtti: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3342283/ Bardufoss: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3342805/ Andoya: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3342804/ WIP: TBD In Queue: Kiruna (will wait till it gets updated by Orbx - according to Discord they work on improving existing airfields) Jokkmokk As you can expect some mods are required to get these running since I want the templates to stay interesting and at least realistic-ish. I try to stick with the most popular and relevant ones. I'm open to any tips, suggestions and comments.

Hey Andyo, no RN Amphib for the moment. The Bay Class will come eventually along with the Canberra and the TCG Anadolu. Testing has started on the USS America. It will take time to bring her back up to speed. I'm testing her weapons which will be revamped along with weapon sounds. I will leave the Aircraft testing to Beldin. Snapshots are below. Today is Mother's Day here in the US Although every day is Mother's and Father's Day. So no modeling today.

This is why Currenthill deserves so much credit. And let's face it - these 3D models aren't cheap, and all the programming and texturing work takes time. We value you as a generous contributor to the DCS community, and speaking of which, I'm going to donate to https://ko-fi.com/currenthill.

Hi all, +++ updated 02.09.2024 +++ I uploaded my Kola Sandbox, a set of 55 slot based quick missions for 12 different aircraft This sandbox is intended to give the players a set of 55 quick missions on the Kola map, to offer single- or multicrew players some quick fun. In total there are 55 missions/slots available for Royal Norwegian Air Force, Swedish Air Force, Finnish Air Force, US Air Force, US Marine Corps and Russian Air Force. These include: Norway 7x F-16 3x F-5 (full fidelity AND FC4) Sweden 5x Viggen Finland 7x F/A-18 3x MiG-21 USA 5x F-15E 3x AV-8B 5x F-4E 5x A-10CII Russia 3x MiG-21 3x MiG-29 3x Su-33 3x Su-25A You will use air bases, road bases and carriers. You will intercept bombers, mingle with fighters, perform SEAD, conduct precision strikes with guided munitions, provide CAS with rockets, gunpods and dumb bombs and many more. What is this sandbox? It is intended to be an easily accessible set of quick missions for players of all skill levels. It offers a variety of F10 radio options to adapt the difficulty, like adding additional SHORAD or numbing down S-300s. Each of the slots has a unique task assigned. To provide a care free experience, the fligtplan is set, all neccessery radio frequencies are set, loadout is selected, tankers are available. But of course you can always adapt all this to your personal liking. The sandbox is also intended to be the user's personal Kola playing ground. You are a Hornet flyer and want to attack the target of Viper #4? Just grab it. You want to fly the JF-17 instead of the F-16? Just swap it. Users can also add new aircraft slots, like super carrier with Tomcats to their liking. The manual provides all neccessary frequencies and a list of target coordinates for maximum variety. Some highlights: + two versions of the mission - one with all aircraft (except for the Kuznetzov slots) set to cold start and one with all aircraft set to hot start. + Mission overview PDF with all relevant data + 18 page PDF manual + Enemy air assets that are slaved to a specific slot can be unlocked for any (added) aircraft via F10 options + various F10 options to set Red SAM behaviour While this set is intended for the single player, it should work well when used as multiplayer as well. Enjoy! https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3339556/

Now that we've gotten the INS update for our DCS F-16CM-50 (great update by the way), I think it's high time that we discuss the Digital Terrain System. This is an old system which was implemented back in the M1 tape for the F-16CM-50, and therefore is something which should definitely make an apperance in the DCS F-16CM-50 which models a M4.2+ tape circa 2007. For some reason this system has never been mentioned in the DCS F-16C roadmap, and seeing as it is a system that adds A TONNE of capability to the F-16CM-50, many of which increase survivability and combat effectiveness greatly, I find it quite surprising that it hasn't been mentioned there yet. The DTS was introduced specifically to reduce the number of CFITs (controlled flight into terrain) as this was the single biggest source of loss of life in the F-16 fleet, and in doing this it also had the side effect of enabling multiple other features to be added to the aircraft. These systems are explained in great detail in various publicly available manuals and studies, so it should not be an problem gathering information. A quick explanation of what the DTS is, it consists of a Data Cartridge which can be used to load approximately 480 square nautical miles of terrain and obstacle data into your aircraft. Whenever you're flying "on map" (within the roughly 480 square nautical mile patch of terrain you've loaded into your aircraft), this is then used by the aircraft in multiple different ways, namely: - Terrain Referenced Navigation (TRN) Allows the F-16CM-50 to cross-reference it's radar altitude against the digital terrain database to greatly reduce INS drift (especially when GPS is not available). The usefulness of this system will depend on how featured the terrain you're flying over actually is (not very effective over the ocean or flat terrain like the desert). - DTS Predictive Ground Collision Avoidance System (PGCAS) The PGCAS is an advisory system which will give the pilot pull up warnings when they are about to fly into terrain. Without PGCAS, you can fly into a steep mountain side without any pull up warning, because your radar altimeter simply cannot detect the mountain face before it is too late. With the Digital Terrain System, the aircraft can calculate your flight path in complex terrain or in situations where your radar altimeter is not pointing downward (like when turning in a dogfight, or diving steeply towards the ground while dodging a SAM) and give you a pull up advisory with enough time to spare for the pilot to be able to avoid flying into the terrain. I'll also mention just to be clear that PGCAS is not GCAS, and the aircraft will not automatically avoid the terrain, it will just provide warning cues for the pilot to take action. - Obstacle Warning and Cueing (OW/C) The OW/C allows obstacle data to be loaded into the aircraft. Each obstacle will have a specified location and height, and whenever your flight path nears an obstacle, the pilot will get an advisory on his HUD, informing him that an obstacle is either straight ahead, or left/right of his flight path, in order to assist the pilot not to fly into this obstacle. - Database Terrain Cueing (DBTC) The DBTC aims to fill the role that the old LANTIRN navigation pods did in low altitude flying. DBTC will allow the pilot to select a desired height above the ground that he wants to fly, and the aircraft will provide cues to the pilot to follow to fly at that height based on the terrain data. This will function much like the LANTIRN did, except that it doesn't automatically fly the aircraft, but instead provides cues for the pilot to follow in order to maintain said altitude above the ground. When calculating the desired flight path, the DBTC will take terrain data ahead of the aircraft into account to give the pilot a smooth flight path that won't send him slamming into a hill or a mountain face. This will allow much safer low altitude flying in the DCS F-16C. - Passive Ranging In addition to all the points mentioned above, the Digital Terrain System also improves targeting accuracy. If you use the JHMCS to designate a markpoint for example, the direction you're head is pointing can be cross referenced against the Digital Terrain Database in order to give you a much more accurate designation that takes terrain elevation into account. Really all kinds of SPI designations where the FCR or laser might be unavailable, will be much more accurate.

Just hold your horses... I might have more stuff coming...

Your guessing game is on point.

Most of the solutions I list were provided by affected users. When someone is in trouble, I give him/her that list in the hope it might help. I for one never had any issue with or without HAGS (it's On on my PC). Defender is as annoying as any other antivirus because scanning files takes time and prevents the sim from accessing these, which results in slow loading times. I added DCS as an exception, but here I think DCS is the problem, because I've never done so for any other game. So again, I don't blame Windows here either. I never had to disable any Windows service on my PC for DCS to work correctly. One of my friend did and it solved his problem completely. Why not sharing this as it may help others? I was trying to help, especially since I was pinged by OP, but I feel a lot of hostility here, so I'm leaving the thread right now and won't return. May someone help @lovethewayoumove to get rid of his performance issues.

+100500. ED?

You guys might like this mini vid, all credits Loki https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlxSReIt7xo

Ich weiß genau was ihr jetzt denkt. Und ihr habt Recht. Der mit dem Geld war natürlich Robin Masters. Higgins verwaltete das Anwesen, Magnum war für die Sicherheit desselben angeheuert. Ich muss gestehen dass ich Magnum vermutlich nie komplett angeschaut habe, aber ich meine mal ein Gerücht gehört zu haben, dass "Robin Masters" in Wirklichkeit Jonathan Quayle Higgins gewesen sei, der sich nur als "Verwalter" ausgab, um mehr oder weniger in Ruhe und Sicherheit sein Leben auf diesem paradiesischen Anwesen auf Hawaii führen zu können. Gänzlich unabhängig davon hatte die Firma "Island Hoppers" meines Wissens überhaupt gar nichts mit Robin Masters (und/oder Jonathan Higgins) zu tun, weshalb T.C. es auch immer ausgesprochen persönlich nahm, wenn "sein" Hubschrauber mal wieder durchsiebt wurde, bloß weil er Magnum einen Gefallen getan hat. Ich bin aber gar nicht sicher, ob T.C. der Inhaber von "Island Hoppers" war oder nur ein angestellter/angeheuerter Pilot. Gänzlich unabhängig stellt sich aber natürlich die Frage: Oh mein Gott, was haben Sie mit Robin Masters' Ferrari angestellt?!

If you want, ....OH-6A\Cockpit\Scripts\ControlsIndicator ControlsIndicator_page.lua

I echoe similar feelings here, though in my case I simply decided to not invest in the content. I own pretty much every WW2 sim/game title that has been released in the last 25 years (some of which received amazing mods by the community), some of which I used for years on end. I got very interested at a certain point but, even after testing the content, it hasn't convinced me. As much as I like DCS, in the end I simply enjoy better the WW2 content that's out there. I just prefer to use DCS for Cold-War and Modern era combat jets, and related conflicts. And that's it. Granted, WW2 DCS is a different product if compared to the rest, more in-depth in regards to the airplanes intricacies, with a steep(er) learning curve. And when you get a warbird that "clicks" with you, it really clicks. I'm convinced it's this which makes people (who bought content for it) persist on it. But the business model, the steep hardware requirements and performance unoptimization, the lack of matching content for the specific period, the utterly glacial pace on updates and bug-fixes, and a somewhat broken community, it all contributes to make WW2 in DCS incoherent and make less sense, when the competitors out there provide not only a lot more consistency and context to particular WW2 segments, era and theme, they can (quite frankly) also provide a better overall experience (once again, IMHO).

I've started a mission file showing SAM and EWR positions, as well as air, land, and sea unit bases and locations in 1988. See attachment for current progress with units in theatre. Also for the crazy amount of military installations that we will hopefully see as the map progresses! Mainly though, I really hope all the relevant airbases get added in! Below is a list of relevant units based nearby that could have contributed or re-based to our theater of operations: (Yes, I know, but I'm an absolute nerd for OOBs...) USSR: 66th independent Fighter-Bomber Aviation Regiment http://www.ww2.dk/new/air force/regiment/shap/66apib.htm 899th Orshanskiy Red Banner order of Suvorov Fighter-Bomber Aviation Regiment im. F.E. Dzerzhinskiy http://www.ww2.dk/new/air force/regiment/shap/899apib.htm 67th independent Bomber Aviation Regiment http://www.ww2.dk/new/air force/regiment/bap/67bap.htm 321st Bomber Aviation Regiment http://www.ww2.dk/new/air force/regiment/bap/321bap.htm 668th Bomber Aviation Regiment http://www.ww2.dk/new/air force/regiment/bap/668bap.htm 132nd Berlinskiy orders of Kutuzov and Aleksandr Nevskiy Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment http://www.ww2.dk/new/air force/regiment/bap/132tbap.htm 144th independent Aviation Regiment for Long-Range Radar Detection (AWACS!) http://www.ww2.dk/new/air force/regiment/orap/144oapdrlo.htm 886th independent Stalingradskiy Red Banner Reconnaissance Aviation Regiment http://www.ww2.dk/new/air force/regiment/orap/886orap.htm 117th independent Berlinskiy order of Kutuzov Aviation Regiment for Electronic Warfare http://www.ww2.dk/new/air force/regiment/tap/117oapreb.htm Plus several IL-76 transport regiments to carry paratroopers, based around Pskov and in the Baltic states. SPECULATION: If a major war broke out in Europe, resources from Afghanistan would probably have been transferred to the front. 378th independent Assault Aviation Regiment http://www.ww2.dk/new/air force/regiment/shap/378oshap.htm (The likeliest candidate as it was activated in Afghanistan. It was, however, made up mostly of personnel on detachment from other squadrons (who in real-life returned to those squadrons once their service period in Afghanistan ended.) Finland: Satakunta Wing/Fighter Squadron 21 – Tammerfors, responsible for SW Finland: 12 Saab J-35 Drakens 1) 1. Flight, Readiness Flight: 12 J-35F Draken (Interceptors) 2) 2. Flight, Conversion Flight: 2 J-35C Draken (Two-seat OCU trainers), 8 Hawk 3) 3. Flight, Training Flight: Vinka/ 4 Hawk Mk-51 (Trainers) 4) 4. Flight, Liason Flight (Liason Aircraft) Karelian Wing/Fighter Squadron 31 -- Kuopio-Rissala, responsible for SE Finland: 30 Mig-21bis plus several Hawks in recon role 1) 1. Flight, Readiness Flight: 30 MiG-21 bis Fishbed N (Interceptors) 2) 2. Flight, Conversion Flight: 6 MiG-21 U/UM Mongol (Two-seat trainers), 3) 3. Flight, Training Flight: 4 Hawk Mk-51 4) 4. Flight, Liason Flight (Liason Aircraft) 3.) Transport Wing – Kouvola-Utti: 3 Fokker F-21-100, 2 Fokker F-27-400, 3 Gates Learjet 35A (Special Mission), 9 Mil-8 Hip 4.) Recconaissance Squadron – Luonetjärvi: Mig-21 Fishbed C, 8 Hawk Mk-51 4.) Training Wing – Kauhava: 39 Hawk Mk. 51s, 30 L-70 Vinkas 5.) Air Force Academy – Kauhava: 27 Hawk Mk-51 (Training-recce) Army units belonging to the northern defense area, but based south of our map: North Finland Military Area, Oulu 1. Army Corps, Oulu g (Reserve) 1-3) Artillery battalions: 36 130 mm gun M-46/152 mm howitzer (Reserve) Northern Jäger Brigade, Oulu 1-4) Jäger battalions: 50 BV each 5) Artillery regiment: 24 122 mm howitzer D-30 Kajanaland Jäger Brigade, Kajani 1-4) Jäger battalions: 50 BV each 5) Artillery regiment: 12 155 mm gun 83, 12 122 mm howitzer D-30 Norway: 332 Fighter/Bomber Skvadron - Rygge, Norway: 16 F-16A (OCU) 335 Skvadron – Gardermoen: 6 C-130H 336 Fighter/Bomber Skvadron - Rygge: 20 NF-5 (F-5A) 338 Fighter/Bomber Skvadron - Orland: 16 F-16A 717 Skvadron: 3 Falcon 20ECM 719 Skvadron: 3+ DHC6 Otter, Bell 412 720 Skvadron – Rigge: 12 UH-1B Sweden: 1st Air Attack group (1.Attackeskadern) - Göteborg a.) 61. Attack Sqn - Karlsborg: AJ 37 Viggen b.) 62. Attack Sqn - Karlsborg: AJ 37 Viggen c.) 71. Attack Sqn - Såtenäs: AJ 37 Viggen d.) 72. Attack Sqn - Såtenäs: AJ 37 Viggen e.) 151. Attack Sqn -Söderhamn: AJ 37 Viggen f.) 152. Attack Sqn -Söderhamn: AJ 37 Viggen 51. Lätta Attackdivisionen Sk 60B/C Fält 28 Gunnarn (Just south of the map we have) US: 18th TFS: 18 A-10 from Alaska possibly one squadron each of F-15s, F-4s, and RF-4C (reconnaissance), and four squadrons of F-16s, 1 of which is part of AMF(A) With thank you to mkellytx below, the following details can be added here: 71 TFS F15C at Andoya (marked on the map) 356 TFS A10A at Andoya (marked on the map) 706 TFS A10A unknown base in Norway 160 TFS at F16A at Vaernes (near Trondheim, south of our map) 194 and 198 TFS F4D unknown base in Norway U.S. Marine Corps: the 4th Marine Amphibious Brigade of the II Marine Amphibious Force (also known as Norway Air-Landed Marine Expeditionary Brigade (NALMEB)) had its equipment pre-positioned in eight purpose-built caves near the Værnes Air Station in Trondheim in central Norway. The eight caves contained material for 15,000 troops and war stocks for 30 days. Three of the caves held ground equipment, three munitions and two held aviation support equipment for two air defense and two ground attack squadrons, as well as for 75 heavy transport and light support helicopters.[6][7] Exercise Teamwork, held every two years during the 1980s, practiced reinforcement of Norway. After that point Exercise Battle Griffin was held in 1993 and 1996. US Navy: CV66 USS America (Overhaul until February 11, then off US east coast) VF-33 “Starfighters” –NAS Oceana: 12 F-14 VF-102 “Diamondbacks” – NAS Oceana: 12 F-14B VA-85 “Black Falcons” – NAS Oceana: 10 A-6E, 4 KA-6D VFA-82 “Marauders” – NAS Cecil Field: 10 (of 12 authorized) F/A-18C (from A-7E, 87, 1st Navy F/A-18C unit) VFA-86 “Sidewinders” – NAS Cecil Field: 10 (of 12 authorized) F/A-18C (from A-7E, 11/87) VAQ-137 “Rooks” – NAS Whidbey Island: 4 EA-6B ICAP II (regularly shifted between wings) VS-32 “Maulers” – NAS Jacksonville: 10 S-3A (to -3B in 11/89) VAW-123 “Screwtops” – NAS Norfolk: 4 E-2C HS-11 “Dragonslayers” – NAS Jacksonville: 6 SH-3 CV67 USS John F. Kennedy (Dry-dock until August) VF-14 “Tophatters” – NAS Oceana: 13 F-14A VF-32 “Swordsman” – NAS Oceana: 15 F-14A VA-75 “Sunday Punchers” – NAS Oceana: 12 A-6E, 4 KA-6 VAW-126 “Seahawks” – NAS Norfolk: 4 E-2C VAQ-130 “Zappers” – NAS Whidbey Island: 4 EA-6B ICAP II (regularly shifted between wings) VS-22 “Checkmates” – NAS Cecil Field, FL: 12 S-3A HS-7 “Dusty Dogs” – NAS North Island: 4 (of 6 authorized) SH-3H (These are the squadron assignments for the Kennedy’s 1988-Feb. 1989 Med deployment, on which it also had VMA(AW)-533 with 10 A-6E from the Marines. During local operations from 11/89-12/89, America also embarked VA46 and VA47, each with 13 A-7E) CV59 USS Forrestal (In US following succesful completion of exercise off Norway in 1987) VF-11 “Red Rippers” – NAS Oceana: 11 (of 12 authorized) F-14A VF-31 “Tomcatters” – NAS Oceana: 12 F-14A VA-37 “Bulls” – NAS Oceana: 10 (of 12 authorized) A-7E (F/A-18A 12/90) VA-105 “Gunslingers” – NAS Cecil Field: 10 (of 12 authorized) A-7E (F/A-18A 1/90) VA-176 “Thunderbolts” – NAS Oceana: 10 A-6E, 4 KA-6D VAW-122 “Steel Jaws” – NAS Norfolk: 4 E-2C VAQ-142 “Greywolves” – NAS Whidbey Island: 4 EA-6B VS-28 “Gamblers” – NAS Cecil Field: 11 S-3A HS-15 “Red Lions” – NAS Jacksonville: 6 SH-3H CVN69 USS Eisenhower (In US, following upgrade) VF-142 “Ghostriders”: 10 (of 12 authorized) F-14A+ VF-143 “Pukin’ Dogs” – NAS Oceana: 10 (of 12 authorized) F-14A+ VA-34 “Blue Blasters” – NAS Oceana: 10 A-6E, 4 KA-6D VFA-131 “Wildcats” – NAS Cecil Field: 13 F-18A (to C, 11/90) VFA-136 “Knight Hawks” – Cecil Field NAS: 12 F/A-18A (to C, 11/90) VAW-121 “Blue Tails” – NAS Norfolk: 4 E-2C VAQ-140 “Patriots” – NAS Whidbey Island: 4 EA-6B VS-31 “Topcats” – NAS Cecil Field, FL: 10 S-3B (from A in late 88) HS-5 “Nightdippers” – NAS Jacksonville: 6 SH-3H CV43 USS Coral Sea (Med or US) VFA-132 “Privateers” – NAS Cecil Field: 12 F/A-18A (to CVW6 10/90) VFA-137 “Kestrals” – NAS Cecil Field: 12 F/A-18A (to CVW6, 10/90) VA-55 “Warhorses” – NAS Oceana: 8 A-6E (disestablished, 1/91) VA-65 “Tigers” – NAS Oceana: 8 A-6E, 4 KA-6D (to CVW8, 10/89) VAQ-133 “Wizards” – NAS Whidbey Island: 4 EA-6B VAW-127 “Seabats” – NAS Norfolk: 4 E-2C HS-17 “Neptunes Raiders” – NAS Jacksonville: 4 SH-3H, 2 SH-3D CV60 USS Saratoga (Being overhauled in US) VF-74 “Bedevilers” – NAS Oceana: 6 F-14A, 6 F-14A+ (converting to A+/B in 89) VF-103 “Sluggers” – NAS Oceana: 8 F-14A, 7 F-14A+ (converting to A+/B in 89) VFA-81 “Sunliners” – NAS Oceana: 14 F/A-18C (from A-7E, 3/88) VFA-83 “Rampagers” – NAS Cecil Field: 14 F/A-18C (from A-7E, 3/88) VAQ-132 “Scorpions” – NAS Whidbey Island: 4 EA-6B VAW-125 “Tiger Tails”: 3 (of 4 authorized) E-2C VS-30 “DiamondCutters”: 8 (of 10 authorized) S-2A HS-3: 6 SH-3H Canada: 1 F-18 Squadron (Part of AMF(A)) UK: 1 Jaguar Squadron (Part of AMF(A)) 1 AV8B Squadron Royal Navy: HMS Invincible (R05), HMS Illustrious (R06), HMS Ark Royal (R07), each with: Multi Mission - Strike, ASuW and ASW 12 x Harrier GR.7/9 10 x Sea King ASaC and Merlin HM Mk.1 helicopters Multi Mission - Strike and ASuW 18 x Harrier GR.7/9 4 x Sea King ASaC and Merlin HM Mk.1 helicopters 3 Commando Brigade including 1 Amphibious Combat Group and Whiskey Company of the Netherlands Marine Corps.[5] The brigade trained annually in Northern Norway and had large stores of vehicles and supplies pre-positioned there. Netherlands: No. 314 Fighter/Bomber Squadron - Gilze-Rijen, NL: 18 NF-5A (Part of AMF(A)) Kola 1988.miz Kola 1988 v.0.1.miz Kola 1988 v.0.2.miz Kola 1988 v.0.3.miz Kola 1988 v.0.5.miz

In light of the recent release of the Kola map, I'd like to make a request for overall more focus on naval operations. I'm asking for the following: - More naval units, both civilian and military. Everything from submarines, to tourist cruise ships. While on-land, the ambient life can be adjusted with "civilian traffic"-slider. On the sea, however, in order to make any believable ambience, one has to individually place out units. That's not really a problem to do, but more variety would be appreciated. That is, both in objects as well as liveries. Possibly make a standardized scheme for naval routes (between ports) which would be connected to the "civilian traffic"-setting. Model ambient activity on ocean, as you do on land. (To expand here, a separate such traffic template should be created for air activity as well.) - More focus on combined arms. Currently, the ability to control ships (quick testing for future members) is somewhat limited, esp. in the domain of running warfare. We need more expansive menus and options for having full control over units being commanded. Preferably, simulate more complex environments such as ASW, +++. Have more complex weapons (available information) such as torpedo-released cruise missiles, etc... We already have a fair bit of naval aircraft/units, but the missions are mostly focused on land operations. I'd like to see more happening on the sea. - Model ocean properly, with depth, such that one can look beneath the ocean - e.g. see a submarine submerged. That also goes for topography as a whole, chief amongst bedfloor. I know this is big, and not done in two, but it would add to the immersion and realism. - Fixing long-standing bugs. Naval units don't respond to orders such as "attack", or generally behave in a unpredictable way. Pathfinding for naval units is also non-existent. One has to specifically make routes that avoid land-intersection, otherwise the units stop. AI-waypoints such as "LandingReFuAr" are not working on ships. I know that the issue is complicated, but with that, for all intents and purposes, AI-operations are limited to one sortie (I prefer native implementation to scripting). Submarines, even while submerged, create a wake on the surface. The footprint is equal to the submarines being afloat. Again, many more bugs exist. They are known, but not fixed due to lack/slow progress in this domain. Thanks!

Dear all, Due to unfortunately being unable to offer a pre-order on Steam this time around, we'll be offering DCS: F-4E at pre-order pricing ($59.99) on Steam for the first week of sales. We hope in this way we can make up for our promise to partake in the pre-order on Steam and give you a chance to grab the F-4 for the same discount. We sincerely hope to see you flying the Phantom with us regardless of your chosen platform. Come next Monday, May 13th, we will also discontinue the merchandise and special edition packs on the Heatblur Store. If you still wanted to grab a t-shirt or vinyl for yourself, or one of the special edition packages, we kindly suggest you do it before then. The pre-order discount will of course continue for both the Lone Wolf and Crew Pack Standard Editions until release day, May 21st. The same goes for the ED E-shop of course. Regarding keys bought on our store: do not worry, we will send out instructions on how to redeem them on the DCS website shortly prior release. Your keys are always safe with us, should you have lost them, and we will be more than happy to assist you through the process. Thank you for all of the wonderful support and we hope to see you all soon in the Phantom Skies! Sincerely, Heatblur Simulations & Eagle Dynamics

Hi, just wondering when we can expect the new rain effects on the canopy (and also the wet carrier deck). It's been teased some time ago and it would be awesome to see that in DCS soon.

Has requested

I find ARMA 3 and DCS very similar animals. They are as arcade or as mil-sim as you want them to be. Everything you mention above is available in ARMA via mod much like mods really make DCS MP something much better than "vanilla". A purposeful marriage of the two titles would be something incredible. ARMA really falls down when it comes to everything aerial and DCS really falls down with everything ground based. There wouldn't be much for the 4th Gen fighters to do in an ARMA fight but if the two companies collaborated on a map that both titles could use simultaneously, it would be truly amazing. Flying an airstrike for friendlies who are humans you can talk to and see on the ground would be an amazing experience.

Version 1.11 - minor update Fixed a persistence (“save game”) bug that affected some units on airfields Thanks to @Grindmetal for discovering the issue

Ah, super cool!

Already fixed internally.

В реале свет тоже не белый. Там стоят галогеновые лампы-фары, они не могут давать чисто белый цвет физически. На видео это косяк баланса белого, камеры.

IIRC, that already exists... in a way. You'll have to do it all yourself, though: make a search (via world.searchObjects() ), filter all objects inside, end then invoke destroy() on them. It does work for some map objects, but not all (no documentation available which and why) - and it's about as reliable in MP as above mentioned 'clear tree' method. And of course this notoriously doesn't work for objects like fire, some debris, craters etc. So yeah, it would be great if we got a reliable means to remove map objects (including trees) for single- and multi-player. Then again, it's only been 6 years since the feature request was logged...

I spent a couple of hours last night trying to hover but couldn't get it off the ground. I'd start to lift and lose RPMs, hit the deck and wait for it to spool up again. This morning I tried messing with curves but still couldn't take off. It was more akin to mowing the lawn than flying. I Came here to look for anyone that's using a Warthog HOTAS as I don't have a fancy set up for helis. I ended up just copying the curves I have set for the Huey and (trumpet fanfare) I took off. Makes all the difference . Great little bird this is.

Не характерная - это мандарины.

I mean, I wouldn't say no to a pre CCIP Block 50/52, I think it would have to come at quite the discount to existing owners as the differences aren't that huge (well a 52 would also have a different engine). I think though I'd much rather have an even earlier variant - something like a Block 40 which would come with I'd argue a more unique ability (at least among F-16s), with an autopilot-coupled TFR and NAVFLIR (as seen in the F-15E). Going earlier still, the F-16A Block 15 or Block 10 - this would work very well for Cold War scenarios, fitting perfectly on the Kola map and potentially on the teased Germany map.

I agree, though I think there should definitely be a priority here and personally, that priority should be: Surface combatants - particularly those that fit our assets, maps and eras and particularly for where we have aircraft carriers but little/no escorts. Capital ships - namely things like aircraft carriers, amphibious warfare ships and to less of an extent, battleships/cruisers. Auxiliaries - namely UNREP vessels such as tankers and dry-cargo/ammunition ships. Merchants - particularly cargo. Here it would be better if it was maybe a more generic type, instead of one-off ships like the Seawise Giant. Sizes should probably be somewhere in the middle and below (i.e. ≤Panamax). Submarines Pleasure craft With how long ships take to make (and even then there's usually numerous errors) I can't really see it being all that practical, especially with the missing stuff for aerial and ground environments (which IMO, as someone very fond of naval, should take priority). Definitely agree there, other flight simulators have certainly gone down that route. Doesn't the channel map also have moving tugs? Well, the problem there is that DCS is just very limited with what ships can actually do, nearly always due to a lack of modelling. Though I would be on board with something like C:MO's manual attack option (which would be far more useful than what we have in the mission editor and in CA). But just to name a few things: Cruise missiles that should be able to be programmed with multiple waypoints can't be - they just fly direct. This takes much of the planning aspect for attacking targets with these weapons and throws it out of the window - you have very little in the way of control. Naval units are absent from the embarking and logistics system, this largely takes away things like amphibious operations (which is pretty eyebrow raising IMO, considering that we have more amphibious types than we do aircraft carriers or BLUFOR surface combatants), especially from a CA perspective. ASW is as good as absent - relegated to using more conventional ASuW sensors and weapons against largely unreactive, surfaced submarines. I can go on and on and on. Well, I mean, first it would be great to get currently existing weapons made higher fidelity and more accurate, before adding completely new ones for a domain of warfare that is as good as not simulated in DCS World. Missiles are currently far more basic than they perhaps should be: The RGM-109C and RGM-84D (at least) should be able to be programmed with multiple waypoints and attack profiles. Right now they can only fly direct, with only a single profile available. The P-500 and -700 should have their own internal DECM systems and their own countermeasures. They should also have different profiles (at least altitude) and when fired as a salvo, should be able to coordinate with each other (with one missile flying high, searching for targets and then data linking what it sees to the rest of the missiles in the group). The SM-2MR currently behaves like an SM-1MR (SARH, illuminating at launch), this is fine for the Oliver Hazard Perry (which should be firing the SM-1MR in the first place, not the SM-2MR) but is problematic for the Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga, where it should be INS+DL with SARH and illumination only in the terminal stage, with the ability to fly a more optimised trajectory. The SM-2MR (alongside a few other SAM systems) currently lacks its secondary ASuW mode, which is especially important for the Arleigh Burke, as aside from guns, that's its only option for ASuW. There's also weapons that are missing, despite being weapons DCS should already support: The Type 148 Tiger (La Combattante IIa) should fire the MM38 Exocet Block 1. Currently (as it has done so for very nearly 3 years now) fires the RGM-84D Harpoon Block 1C. The Condell-class should fire the MM40 Exocet Block 1 (similar to the 38 Block 1, but has folding fins for smaller launch cannisters and is slightly longer-ranged) The Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga are missing: RIM-66M-5 SM-2MR Block IIIB (in addition to the M-2), which has a secondary IR homing capability. RIM-156A SM-2ER Block IV (Ticonderoga) RIM-162A ESSM Block I (Arleigh Burke) RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Block I (Arleigh Burke) RGM-109D Tomahawk Block III TLAM-D RGM-109E Tomahawk Block IV TACTOM - this one has been in the files for years now (possibly since 2017) It doesn't just go for missiles either, gun rounds are similar: Pretty much every naval gun >57 mm calibre in game should support multiple ammunition types - at least a point-detonating and either a proximity or time-fused HE round (with proximity being more common among the ships we have). The Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS still fires the wrong rounds (currently fires some 20 mm HE round, it should fire APDS rounds which at least in the case of the Block 1B should be untraced). RAZBAM's Leander-class frigates still fire the wrong calibre (130 mm as opposed to 114 mm). Again, I could go on. I haven't even brought up the abysmal sensor modelling yet, like how several radars, even those directly applicable to aircraft, aren't even defined (such the AN/SPS-48C and E, the AN/SPS-49(V)5 and (V)9); how often radars will be copied and pasted from each other, even if they're completely different radars (like how the Mk 92 CAS and the AN/SPY-1B/B(V)/D(V) are both copied and pasted from the AN/MPQ-53 RS from Patriot). You can make a slight tweak to Server.lua inside your main DCS installation directory, under Config\View. If you change "CameraTerrainRestriction" to false from true you'll be able to take the camera underwater (though it will also clip through terrain). There is an 'underwater' graphically modelled (albeit quite basic) but before there wasn't anything at all. As for bathymetry, yes, I agree. It doesn't have to be a high resolution mesh, just so long as it's roughly accurate (i.e. the depths match the charts, which are often included in DCS). There aren't many maps that do it particularly well but some are definitely better than others (Caucasus is fairly bad for it, I've heard that the many fjords and naval bases of the Kola map aren't deep enough to be usable either). Again, couldn't agree more. With all that said however, I'm sorry, but I can't see any of this changing within the next decade. I've yet to see much evidence (outside maybe a few minor bugs) that the naval environment really has any priority whatsoever. Not that that's all that surprising, considering there's plenty of stuff that's lacking as far as aerial and land warfare is concerned, before going anywhere near naval (and as I said previously, aerial > land > naval is where the priority should lie and even when we get to naval, the priority should probably be AAW > ASuW > ASW). But I mean, in some cases, I think there's enough evidence to suggest that even basic, fundamental research just isn't being done. What else explains how we have a Type VIIC U-boat U-flak which clearly isn't a U-flak? How the Samuel Chase has the hull number of the Arthur Middleton? (And these 2 are assets you have to pay for!) How the Castle-class has completely the wrong gun and the Type 148 and the Condell have completely the wrong missiles? How the Tarawa has the wrong radars and is missing guns? How the Oliver Hazard Perry is a frankenstein of 2 different variants, which IRL were mutually exclusive? How the Arleigh Burke is quite the mess, having the 2 CIWS from one variant, the funnel design of another, liveries for another 2 and the missile availability from another still? Even HB's Forrestal (which otherwise looks amazing) still doesn't have a graphical damage model to speak of at all, the same is true for all of RAZBAM's assets minus the Tarawa (obviously excluding the smoke). It also still has issues with its lights (particularly the FLOLS), as well as more minor issues with its artwork (things like the Phalanx, the radars, the unanimated directors and propellers) and missing sounds. I also want to bring up that DCS is expanding into WW2 PTO (and looking towards a Battle of the Philippine Sea, the WW2 Marianas map would certainly get quite close if it was expanded westwards, both announced aircraft fit, as do the aircraft carriers). However, as it stands, Cold War BLUFOR is hardly fleshed out at all and now they're adding a WW2 theatre which IRL had a heavy naval focus. As far as allied assets go, so far we've seen 2 USN aircraft carriers (though ED's Enterprise is completely devoid of all its armament - bit worrying), 2 USN aircraft - that's a pretty good, but then, where's everything else? We've yet to see a single applicable escort for them (Fletcher-class DD easily makes the most sense for the Philippine Sea). In the promotional material of them, the battlegroup was a carrier and then everything else was either the LST(2) or the Samuel Chase (amphibious warfare ships, which DCS doesn't natively support, outside of fudging it with late activation). The only IJN ship we've been teased is the post-refit Mogami and while an AI zero has been teased, so far there's no aircraft carrier for it. To make it worse, in the months and months since this was all teased, we haven't even seen a plan of what to expect, let alone progress on their implementation - it's all a big unknown. All this together isn't exactly inspiring me with confidence and the track record is plenty bad enough. It leads me to believe that we'll see yet another barely fleshed out theatre with not a lot to do. It's certainly making the game even wider, but it's not doing much to address its very shallow depth. I guess at least the announced assets, modules and maps for PTO are all coherent with each other, which is rather unprecedented in DCS, so that's definitely a welcome change in direction. That's not to say there's been no improvements (we did get submarines that can actually submerge, torpedoes (albeit basic and broken EDIT: actually this has been fixed), how the A/RGM-84D aims was made higher fidelity (instead of just aiming for the centre of the unit), the straight-running torpedoes appear to have been fixed. However, there's still a gargantuan distance to go (and that's without expanding into ASW, heck, even purely concerning AAW there's a heck of a long way to go) - the AI, the damage, weapon and sensor modelling, physics, controllable functionality (such as lights) etc, etc, etc.

Just been thinking about this, please excuse my musing- but upon further thought, if the current kinematic model of the phoenix matches the NASA simulation across a range of altitudes, then that is more than good enough for me `\/(••,)\/`

Из "аркады" там только упрощённое управление переключателями, не надо и на всё остальное, которое в ГС вполне реалистично проработано, этот ярлык навешивать. А то так можно далеко зайти: "А давайте пушки им в два раза точнее сделаем, а то новичкам тяжело из них попадать? Ну а чё такого? Это ж аркада!"

It also works the other way around. If you select TADS first as sight and then link, the radar will turn towards the TADS. This might also be useful, because you can't slave the radar to the tads otherwise. this is because to slave the radar, the radar needs to be the sight. but if the radar is the active sight, you can't move the tads to slave the radar to it. So LINK is helpful to: Visually identify an FCR contact (FCR as sight, then LINK) Scan an area that you point your TADS to from the front seat (TADS as sight, then LINK) I imagine radar controls (Scan burst) are available when LINK is active in either mode.

This post is for entertainment purposes more so than a visual bug report...this crewman must have been stuck on the runway when i was taking off and got attached to the left wing ... disappeared after a dive bombing run

В ВР только карту по мощнее, но хз, мне на мониторе удобнее, нет лишних пол кг на голове, нет мыльца, картинка плавнее в 144фпс и крутить головой клипсой удобнее.

New website where I intend to publish my mods and my missions with some frequency, all free and for everyone. Surely I won't be as fast as I would like, but the work is hard and only I work XD. https://bestiajezmodsmisions.neocities.org/

Oh, was hab ich die Serie geliebt…..

Zeus und Apollo, die "Jungs"

Finished. I may release this one anyway. I'll talk with the group.

Figuring out how to get additional variants into DCS would be a nice improvement. I imagine the most sensible way is through module upgrades that expand the range of modules. However it happens, if it happens, I'm all in.

What's going on in this subject at all? The problem is not solved, you can still see a large square that breaks the immersion, then when the LOD of the model is loaded, the object becomes smaller. Unfortunately it looks very bad still. Any news about improvements?

Thanks Andrew, I've read about the different sub-classes of Essex carriers, but we have no model to support the CVS species, the different elevator position, or the straight deck earlier version. So for now we have to stay with this one presentation of Essex class carriers of the Vietnam War era. Knowing my own deficiencies when it comes to modeling, I'll make no promises if we've ever include those variants. But thanks for raising awareness!

Yep, that's the idea.

@OnReTechAny hope for an update with next DCS patch (mai 21) ?

I really want this module but like you I'm worried that it will be like the F-14 or worse for performance. I will continue to dither until 20th May at 23:59. Then I will panic, rush into action and buy it.

Nope. There’s not a single document on the planet that would support this, nor would it help alleviate the confusion that already exists. The terms mean things, AFCS has its own specific traits and characteristics. Please do not inject wrong or incorrect terms when describing things. I’ve literally explained the differences and terms and how the system works across multiple forum threads. Less conjecture and less folks who’ve never interacted with the system describing or talking about the system at this stage is what we need..not more.

FYI, we do have access to very high-resolution (1-m to 2-m) LiDAR based elevation data for almost all areas of DCS: Kola. However, overall vertex density (= the number of triangles generated from the raster source data) directly impacts the size of the main surface mesh file, which, with Kola, is already the biggest in all of DCS land, I believe. That's because all of the thousands of lakes, and detailed shorelines, get embedded into that mesh file as well, something other maps don't have a lot of to worry about. We've already integrated some very clever tweaks in the processing stages but hope to do even better in the future.